Ukraine and Russia: Answering common questions and issues

[WhatsGoingOn2022]

Hi, I am starting this thread due to the amount of misinformation and speculation I have seen on the boards around what is happening with Russia's war on Ukraine.

While I am by no means a leading specialist, I have a master's degree focusing on the defence and economics aspect of international relations, I work today in politics and have a lot of links in the area. Anything I can't answer I can at least point you to the people who can-- I naturally follow this incredibly closely.

I thought it might be helpful if myself and others with specific knowledge in this area could help to answer any questions you have, on anything from the war, to sanctions, to Russia's actions, to the fallout.

By ramping up the rhetoric

Ramping up the rhetoric? People just can see that civilians are being bombed as they try to escape.

Such an interesting thread, thank you for taking the time to compose such detailed responses. Finally managed to read it all and now the questions I had have slipped my mind.

@Imtootired

I saw you recommend kissingers book earlier and I’m not surprised. It sounds like he could have been one of your tutors and maybe you missed your true calling as a university of Chicago advisor to Pinochet. I can’t even get to all the problems I find in your posts so far but you are either wilfully ignorant or a complete war hawk. For a start saying that an average Ukrainian would like to punch the former president in the face - there is no average citizen anywhere and Ukrainians don’t all think the same way. As for China being behind the scenes in all this - ummm what? Yellow peril!! Scary! The west are asking them to get involved in the peace process but they have no interest in interfering in other countries’ affairs. And saying that their projects in Africa aren’t charity - they don’t claim that, but unlike the IMF they don’t demand that countries de regulate their whole financial systems. And most importantly anyone who knows anything about this region in the past few decades knew this would happen if NATO continued its expansion east. Even your hero Kissinger. But don’t worry the west will fight down to the last Ukrainian. And they will keep sending in weapons until we have a new Al quaeda, this time maybe with Banderite ideology. One question for the expert - do you believe the USA had any influence over the orange “revolution” of 2014? Can’t wait for your answer on that one. Oh and what’s your take on the Iraq war, who were the “barbarians” in that case?

Hi @Imtootired, I'm sorry if my posts have upset you. What I'll start by saying is that this is a thread on Russia and Ukraine. That is why I have been posting specifically on this topic and not trying to get drawn into back and forth on e.g. the Iraq war. I think some of the very strongly worded posts that are coming my way are based on the misguided assumption that if I have issues with Russia's current foreign policy then I somehow supported Bush. This is a bit of whataboutery combined with a lot of assumptions. If you would like to start a thread on Yemen or the Korean War or Iraq you would hear equally strongly worded posts from me that I think you would agree with.

I don't happen to believe that Ukrainians should die en masse because 'IRAQ WAS AN ILLEGAL WAR BUSH IS A WARMONGERER' etc etc etc. I actually happen to share that view. It also happens to be utterly irrelevant to this war. One of the principles I tried to set out earlier as a useful starting point: if you can't agree that Ukrainians deserve a discussion and thread of their own, then don't try to stop those who do care about the topic discussing it.

On Ukrainian feeling about their past president: I am intrigued about that, I wasn't aware there was any actual Ukrainian support for him worth speaking of? Would be intrigued by evidence to the contrary, considering I have also been harshly spoken to on here for repeating the rumour that Putin was considering bringing him back as a puppet leader as he couldn't be so stupid. So I'm somehow being critiqued on both sides for that one... But again if I am wrong on this please do present some evidence on this.

I'm actually not a big Kissinger fan, the main reason I was recommending his stuff on China is that it's easy to get summaries online and it's quite broad brush over their philosophy of war. In terms of saying China is partially behind this: yes? I don't see the issue there, mainly as it is true. It has been covered extensively and what I am saying is the 'mainstream' opinion. The links are in this thread but it is getting long so I'm happy to dig them out. China knew and negotiated the dates.

In terms of China 'not intervening in other countries' affairs': I am genuinely intrigued by that. I have to say I was closer to your opinion on that a good while back and shared your assessment of Kissinger's views on China. However that changed when I had a series of quite significant professional interactions with the Chinese government, as well as in speaking to those who work in FDI screening (this is basically the security checks for allowing foreign companies/individuals to invest).

I've not made it any secret that I have quite a harsh stance on China and their position in foreign affairs. I think this position is completely justified. I have already said I would align with Tom Tugendhat roughly on where I stand on them. China is not something however that I specialised in academically so if you have any good recommendations for reading I would be happy to receive them.

On the IMF: I actually covered this quite a bit academically. Again, you are assuming somewhat bizarrely that if I critique China by implication I support the IMF? I don't understand this unfortunately. Again, if you would like to make a thread discussing the IMF and their policies I would give a very strongly worded critique.

Sorry I know I missed at points in there, they are ones that are worth covering in more detail than I can fit in this post

[quote 1dayatatime]@merrymouse

The President of Ukraine has called for a no fly zone and posts describing the Russians / Putin as neo Nazis, looking to move on to the next country, Hitler like, if we don't stop him in Ukraine it will us next etc etc are both jingoistic and escalating.[/quote]
Hi I think we haven't actually even touched on no fly zones yet (unless I've forgotten), it's a topic worthy of it's own bit of detail. You will note that I have certainly not called for or supported one.

I do stand by the Hitler-like and needs to be stoped point. That is what is actually happening right now by Putin losing so much military equipment in Ukraine, combined with the economic sanctions. If you were very cynical (and willing to sacrifice Ukrainians) one could argue that he should be allowed to run his military power into the ground there, while using economics to stop him replacing it. Not a tactic I would endorse, but a definite possibility.

So when I say 'he needs to be stopped' I am not advocating direct NATO military intervention. It's a topic we actually haven't discussed yet.

@Imtootired

"Do you know what happened to the people in Russia after Yeltsin’s reforms? Their savings disappeared! They were robbed! The life expectancy went down at a rate unbelievable in peace time. WTF. What happened in the 90’s is the main reason why Russia does not trust the west and will not give up its interests."

+++++

I am very aware of what happened to Russian people during the Yeltsin reforms. Trying to move a country with 75 years of communism to a capitalist democracy overnight led to Ponzi schemes, old factories being closed, poverty and instability. The West could and should have helped with this transition more but didn't ( such as a Marshall Plan). It reminds me of the Weimar Republic. This same instability in the transition also happened in the Ukraine.

This in turn led to a more nationalistic and strong man approach under Putin where people exchanged western type democracy for strong man rule and stability and oligarchs. However this has its downsides and leads to more brutal governance and events such as Ukraine.

Unfortunately this then leads to a collision of values / interests between the West and Russia. The style and how Russia itself is governed it up to the Russians themselves, so long as they don't try and impose that style on other countries.

What I want to avoid is this conflict escalating and spreading with a low but real risk of tactical nukes being used. We now need cool heads and de escalation not hot heads on both sides ramping up the rhetoric and escalating an already dangerous conflict.

@merrymouse

By ramping up the rhetoric

Ramping up the rhetoric? People just can see that civilians are being bombed as they try to escape.

One thing I will add on this: in terms of 'ramping up the rhetoric', if you follow it closely you can see that NATO countries have been quite careful to do there opposite. Macron and Germany (I can't remover if Chancellor or Foreign Sec) are in regular touch with Putin, there is also a NATO-Russian military hotline to avoid accidental confrontation on the ground. NATO has clearly stated repeatedly that they will not do a no fly zone or become militarily involved. They originally considered fighter jets for Ukraine but when Russia got annoyed they backed down and withdrew the offer. The US cancelled a planned missile test to avoid Russia twisting it into a threat. NATO have repeatedly said that nuclear weapons are not on the table here. NATO has also kept a line on not saying they are 'at war' with Russia despite Russia trying to say this: there was one slip up by a French official who called it an 'economic war' on tv and was then harshly shut down by Macron.

Basically: what I am trying to do here is a bit of an info dump that in my mind supports the perspective that NATO have not ramped up tensions here. While they have been firm with Putin they have been somewhat deferential.

It is worth considering the kind of attacks Putin has done regularly against NATO countries: e.g. the Salisbury novichok poisonings. I can compile a list later but their provocations are regular and extreme. Then just try to imagine seeing a NATO country doing this to Russia. Basically unthinkable. NATO has continued this position of arguably undeserved respect towards Putin. I wouldn't necessarily suggest they should stop though: more they shouldn't have done this to begin with, but now is not a good time to change too much on that

Letmesleep123 said:

If you are genuinely interested, have a look at this video of Victoria Nuland taken 8 years ago

American Conquest by Subversion: Victoria Nuland's Admits Washington Has Spent $5 Billion to "Subvert Ukraine" "After three visits to Ukraine in five weeks, Victoria Nuland explains that in the past two decades, the United States has spent five Billion dollars ($5,000,000,000) to subvert Ukraine, and assures her listeners that there are prominent businessmen and government officials who support the US project to tear Ukraine away from its historic relationship with Russia and into the US sphere of interest (via "Europe").

***

The United States' financial package to Ukraine totalling $5billion hasn't once been a secret. And its not done in order to "subvert Ukraine" or to "tear Ukraine away from its historic relationship with Russia".

The Kremlin in Moscow DOES view the United States' financial aid to Ukraine as code for regime change. But that's just the Russian view under Putin because their real aim is this:

"The goal is to keep the post-Soviet space within the Russian sphere of influence. In the case of Georgia and Ukraine, the goal is also to preclude a drift over to the West; in the Baltic States, to question the underlying principle of NATO, that countries like the US or Germany would be prepared to risk a war over a small country like Estonia. Large NATO countries don't have the answer to that dilemma yet, and Putin is trying to create a situation where the answer will be “no.” So it's great power politics, it's sphere-of-influence politics."

Source: Ukrainian Research Institute Harvard University had an interview with award-winning historian Serhii Plokhy in August 2017.

So, of course, the Kremlin and their sympathisers would make the argument that all this is effectively the fault of the United States of America.

United States Assistant Secretary Nuland stated in a 2014 interview with Christiane Amanpour of CNNI that:

"The United States has invested some five billion dollars in Ukraine since 1991 when it became an independent state again after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And that money has been spent on supporting the aspirations of the Ukrainian people to have a strong, democratic government that represents their interests."

In a later post, you claimed it shouldn't take $5billion to achieve democracy. That is an illogical assertion since its extremely expensive to create a democracy AND to maintain one long term.

Furthermore, Ukraine is a society that is both unstable and divided which isn't surprising given Russia's behaviour for the last decade.

The charge of subversion in your post is also addressed by US Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland:

"But we certainly didn’t spend any money supporting the Maidan; that was a spontaneous movement, which is a far cry from what we are concerned Russia is up to now in eastern Ukraine."

The Kremlin claimed Nuland giving sandwiches out was evidence of American subversion in Ukraine which is absurd as Assistant Secretary Nuland explained below:

"And with regard to the day on the Maidan when I was present, that visit happened the night after the Ukrainian special forces under then-President Yanukovych moved against peaceful demonstrators, and began pushing and shoving them off the Maidan, and it was a very scary and dangerous night. They ultimately had to pull back when more peaceful protestors came and surrounded them, and the next day, when I went to visit Maidan, I didn’t think I could go down empty-handed, given what everybody had been through. So as a sign, a gesture of peace, I brought sandwiches to both the Maidan protestors, and to the Berkut soldiers."

The fact you linked to a YouTube video showing Victoria Nuland's interview from 2014 and which claims it is her admitting to "subverting Ukraine" is......Well, not only suspect.

But is disinformation. Its a distortion of freely available information with a clear Kremlin influenced anti-US slant.

Full transcript of Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland's 2014 interview with CNNI's Christiane Amanpour:

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1404/S00240/interview-with-christiane-amanpour-on-cnni-s-amanpour.htm?from-mobile=bottom-link-01

[quote 1dayatatime]@Imtootired

"Do you know what happened to the people in Russia after Yeltsin’s reforms? Their savings disappeared! They were robbed! The life expectancy went down at a rate unbelievable in peace time. WTF. What happened in the 90’s is the main reason why Russia does not trust the west and will not give up its interests."

+++++

I am very aware of what happened to Russian people during the Yeltsin reforms. Trying to move a country with 75 years of communism to a capitalist democracy overnight led to Ponzi schemes, old factories being closed, poverty and instability. The West could and should have helped with this transition more but didn't ( such as a Marshall Plan). It reminds me of the Weimar Republic. This same instability in the transition also happened in the Ukraine.

This in turn led to a more nationalistic and strong man approach under Putin where people exchanged western type democracy for strong man rule and stability and oligarchs. However this has its downsides and leads to more brutal governance and events such as Ukraine.

Unfortunately this then leads to a collision of values / interests between the West and Russia. The style and how Russia itself is governed it up to the Russians themselves, so long as they don't try and impose that style on other countries.

What I want to avoid is this conflict escalating and spreading with a low but real risk of tactical nukes being used. We now need cool heads and de escalation not hot heads on both sides ramping up the rhetoric and escalating an already dangerous conflict.[/quote]
@1dayatatime I know we have disagreed very strongly throughout this thread but I actually agree with virtually every word you say here!

What I do disagree with is the danger of tactical nukes: they would be a tragedy, but most likely a tragedy for Ukraine rather than necessarily expanding into use of strategic nukes (ie ICBMs or what the man on the street would consider NUKES). I think they would go down about as badly as chemical weapons with the world at large, unfortunately if I were to place bets I would gingerly suggest Russia might be more likely to go chemical than nuclear. I think in part due to the fact chemical can be harder to prove (on this point though I would need to double check so don't take my word on that).

[quote DownNative]Letmesleep123 said:

If you are genuinely interested, have a look at this video of Victoria Nuland taken 8 years ago

American Conquest by Subversion: Victoria Nuland's Admits Washington Has Spent $5 Billion to "Subvert Ukraine" "After three visits to Ukraine in five weeks, Victoria Nuland explains that in the past two decades, the United States has spent five Billion dollars ($5,000,000,000) to subvert Ukraine, and assures her listeners that there are prominent businessmen and government officials who support the US project to tear Ukraine away from its historic relationship with Russia and into the US sphere of interest (via "Europe").

***

The United States' financial package to Ukraine totalling $5billion hasn't once been a secret. And its not done in order to "subvert Ukraine" or to "tear Ukraine away from its historic relationship with Russia".

The Kremlin in Moscow DOES view the United States' financial aid to Ukraine as code for regime change. But that's just the Russian view under Putin because their real aim is this:

"The goal is to keep the post-Soviet space within the Russian sphere of influence. In the case of Georgia and Ukraine, the goal is also to preclude a drift over to the West; in the Baltic States, to question the underlying principle of NATO, that countries like the US or Germany would be prepared to risk a war over a small country like Estonia. Large NATO countries don't have the answer to that dilemma yet, and Putin is trying to create a situation where the answer will be “no.” So it's great power politics, it's sphere-of-influence politics."

Source: Ukrainian Research Institute Harvard University had an interview with award-winning historian Serhii Plokhy in August 2017.

So, of course, the Kremlin and their sympathisers would make the argument that all this is effectively the fault of the United States of America.

United States Assistant Secretary Nuland stated in a 2014 interview with Christiane Amanpour of CNNI that:

"The United States has invested some five billion dollars in Ukraine since 1991 when it became an independent state again after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And that money has been spent on supporting the aspirations of the Ukrainian people to have a strong, democratic government that represents their interests."

In a later post, you claimed it shouldn't take $5billion to achieve democracy. That is an illogical assertion since its extremely expensive to create a democracy AND to maintain one long term.

Furthermore, Ukraine is a society that is both unstable and divided which isn't surprising given Russia's behaviour for the last decade.

The charge of subversion in your post is also addressed by US Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland:

"But we certainly didn’t spend any money supporting the Maidan; that was a spontaneous movement, which is a far cry from what we are concerned Russia is up to now in eastern Ukraine."

The Kremlin claimed Nuland giving sandwiches out was evidence of American subversion in Ukraine which is absurd as Assistant Secretary Nuland explained below:

"And with regard to the day on the Maidan when I was present, that visit happened the night after the Ukrainian special forces under then-President Yanukovych moved against peaceful demonstrators, and began pushing and shoving them off the Maidan, and it was a very scary and dangerous night. They ultimately had to pull back when more peaceful protestors came and surrounded them, and the next day, when I went to visit Maidan, I didn’t think I could go down empty-handed, given what everybody had been through. So as a sign, a gesture of peace, I brought sandwiches to both the Maidan protestors, and to the Berkut soldiers."

The fact you linked to a YouTube video showing Victoria Nuland's interview from 2014 and which claims it is her admitting to "subverting Ukraine" is......Well, not only suspect.

But is disinformation. Its a distortion of freely available information with a clear Kremlin influenced anti-US slant.

Full transcript of Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland's 2014 interview with CNNI's Christiane Amanpour:

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1404/S00240/interview-with-christiane-amanpour-on-cnni-s-amanpour.htm?from-mobile=bottom-link-01[/quote]
Thanks @DownNative, great and thorough analysis

Oh on breaking news: just seen that Orban has signed a new order to allow NATO troops in Hungary. That's pretty big, after blocking and prevarication the last week. It's interesting to see increasing examples of an action intended to keep states under Kremlin influence is actually having the opposite effect.

www.reuters.com/world/europe/pm-orban-signs-decree-allowing-deployment-nato-troops-western-hungary-2022-03-07/?taid=6225fbf918c5730001d4f4e5&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

Just out of interest, what is your take on the ban for men aged 18-60 leaving Ukraine?
Yes I know conscription has been done through history and yes I know they are needed for the war effort.
But what is your take on forcing people who may have no interest in the war effort to stay and fight or be killed?
Not being goady. I’m genuinely interested in how this disregard for human rights can be in keeping with a moral high ground.

@Thereisnolight

Just out of interest, what is your take on the ban for men aged 18-60 leaving Ukraine? Yes I know conscription has been done through history and yes I know they are needed for the war effort. But what is your take on forcing people who may have no interest in the war effort to stay and fight or be killed? Not being goady. I’m genuinely interested in how this disregard for human rights can be in keeping with a moral high ground.

Hi!

Actually a super interesting question, and one I have conflicting views on. I'm not personally from a country that has any kind of mandatory military service, but I know quite a few people who are and who have done it. I think that shapes my perspective quite a bit in making me feel instinctively somewhat uncomfortable.

For me it feels different in a defensive vs offensive capacity, if that makes sense? I feel slightly uncomfortable with Ukraine's use of conscription but overwhelmingly uncomfortable with Russia's use of conscripts in Ukraine. I think it's because I instinctively feel that a state's actions in self defence in a war allow leeway for mobilising the grassroots, at least more than in a normal scenario. Basically I don't have any fundamental moral problem with the idea that people being invaded should support their nation's resistance. In ECHR law a big aspect of whether a restriction on fundamental freedom is 'justified' is whether it is proportionate. Which means that in a high stakes situation like this, it is easier to justify.

As I understand it however the rule in Ukraine for men is to support the defence rather than to actually carry arms specifically? I don't think they have anywhere near the weapons numbers anyway for everyone to actively fight. I believe I am correct on that but if anyone has information otherwise I'd welcome it.

Support for Zelensky and his leadership on this has been very high in Ukraine, I believe polling is something like 91% support him at this time. The scenes as well of some 60,000 Ukrainian men returning to fight adds to this evidence of an actual genuine determination on the ground to create this resistance.

As far as I am aware, on the ground in Ukraine we are not seeing scenes of people refusing conscription or attempting to abandon posts. I could be wrong on this so if you have anything there I would be interested. I definitely think things like e.g. shooting conscripts who defect is utterly unacceptable and I hope this does not occur.

I actually know some people who were conscripted (not talking about Ukraine here) and were conscientious objectors. In their country they instead did service such as ambulance driving, assisting medics, mechanics, etc.

Good summary of that here: www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/RuleOfLaw/Pages/ConscientiousObjection.aspx

I also think they have specific get outs on health etc grounds, I know they have been allowing men in this age range with disabilities etc to travel into Poland.

On the other hand I also know women who are choosing to stay to support the war movement, not necessarily armed but there are a whole host of other ways to keep the country moving.

Hey @Thereisnolight sorry slightly unrelated to your Q but on conscription I saw a fascinating piece online that I had not been aware of: on Russia conscription of Ukrainians from Crimea, I'm not sure if any of them have been sent into fight yet.

www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/01/crimea-conscription-violates-international-law#

Overall your question is quite philosophical and I will openly say that's not something I have any expertise in! Some of the other posters in this thread might be able to give you some pointers on where to go on reading about this.

Thank you. Yes I know there is huge support for the defence effort.
I suspect that popularity makes it even more difficult for those who don’t want to be involved. Huge social pressure.
I guess it’s nothing anyone wants to address right now though.

@WhatsGoingOn2022

"What I do disagree with is the danger of tactical nukes: they would be a tragedy, but most likely a tragedy for Ukraine rather than necessarily expanding into use of strategic nukes (ie ICBMs or what the man on the street would consider NUKES). "

++++

The danger of tactical nukes is indeed the issue we disagree on.

I see their most likely use being against NATO troop formations rather than in Ukraine if these NATO troops were to a) become involved and b) started to get the upper hand. Why use tactical nukes in Ukraine with the resultant incredible escalation and threat a wider nuclear war when thermostatic bombs would equally suit their needs in Ukraine.

I also believe that the use of tactical nukes carries a very strong and real risk of escalation into a wider (ICBM) nuclear conflict. See:

www.businessinsider.com/tactical-nuclear-weapons-escalation-us-russia-war-animated-strike-map-2019-9?amp

I have read that ukraine have taken back a city and an air port ? Not seeing it ok the TV news though?

[quote 1dayatatime]@WhatsGoingOn2022

"What I do disagree with is the danger of tactical nukes: they would be a tragedy, but most likely a tragedy for Ukraine rather than necessarily expanding into use of strategic nukes (ie ICBMs or what the man on the street would consider NUKES). "

++++

The danger of tactical nukes is indeed the issue we disagree on.

I see their most likely use being against NATO troop formations rather than in Ukraine if these NATO troops were to a) become involved and b) started to get the upper hand. Why use tactical nukes in Ukraine with the resultant incredible escalation and threat a wider nuclear war when thermostatic bombs would equally suit their needs in Ukraine.

I also believe that the use of tactical nukes carries a very strong and real risk of escalation into a wider (ICBM) nuclear conflict. See:

www.businessinsider.com/tactical-nuclear-weapons-escalation-us-russia-war-animated-strike-map-2019-9?amp

[/quote]
I think the point we disagree on there though is NATO troops becoming involve. I not only don't think this is going to happen but would actively say this should (MUST) not happen. I don't think it is within a million miles of being on the cards, not least as it would need to be unanimous. I haven't seen any NATO country seriously suggest this.

We are definitely agreed that it should not happen. I just want to reassure you that I genuinely, with all my beliefs, do not think this is even on the table. The destruction of the Russian army will be by Ukrainian forces and through western economic sanctions. Unless there is some serious error or massive change in tact, a direct NATO-Russia confrontation would be Russia attacking NATO.

A video from Princeton University showing how the use of one tactical nuclear weapon would escalate very quickly into a larger nuclear war:

@WhatsGoingOn2022

"I think the point we disagree on there though is NATO troops becoming involve. I not only don't think this is going to happen but would actively say this should (MUST) not happen. I don't think it is within a million miles of being on the cards, not least as it would need to be unanimous. I haven't seen any NATO country seriously suggest this"

++++

Whilst there is no plan or intention for NATO troops to become involved, wars are unpredictable and mistakes or unordered attacks do take place. This risk is greater the longer this conflict goes on for. For example a NATO warship mistaken for a Ukrainian vessel is attacked or violence spilling over the border into Poland etc.

Lastly the increasing and large concentration of NATO troops in countries such as Poland and the Baltic States also increases this risk that mistakes or incidents will occur.

[quote 1dayatatime]@Aristalese

Respectfully to Putin and Russians it really is all about NATO and its expansion - it for this very reason that Putin demanded a commitment from NATO and Ukraine that it would not join NATO.

Russians continue to be scared of being attacked and always have been- I mean wouldn't you after the historical track record of Germany, Japan and the UK in the last 100 years.

This is not Russian propaganda, it's just historical facts.

That said I fully understand how to Governments and people in the West that it seems incredulous that NATO would want to attack Russia but there in lies the misunderstanding that fuelled the Cold War for 50 years.[/quote]
Stop! Just stop! Whatever excuse for outings actions can be come up with is NOT an excuse. If you feel that strongly that he is justified then leave here and go join him in his country! NOTHING is a valid excuse for the way he/his army are acting.

Can I just clarify a few things please:

1. There was a reference a couple of pages ago to Boris Jelcyn governing Soviet Russia (or words to that effect). Jelcyn never led Soviet Russia. He was a president of the Russian Federation. You might be confusing with Mikhail Gorbaczow.

1. Russians may have been affected badly by the change of political system. However, don't forget that change occured in all former Eastern bloc. Was it easy? No. Necessary? Yes. I lived through it. Fire away any questions you may have.
2. Russia's wealth was based on abusing other nations including my own, as it usually happens. So should there be a lot of sympathy for them in the early 90s? Limited, at best.
3. Both Gorbaczow and Jelcyn actually brought a lot of positive reforms to the country and had a decent dialogue with their neighbours. So please don't pait them with the same brush or even a brush that comes from the same box as Putin. An entirely different group of leaders.

@Purplecatlover

"Stop! Just stop! Whatever excuse for outings actions can be come up with is NOT an excuse. If you feel that strongly that he is justified then leave here and go join him in his country! NOTHING is a valid excuse for the way he/his army are acting."

+++

In no way do I believe that the actions of Putin of invading another country against its will and the deaths of its citizens is in any way justified.

I was most definitely not trying to justify his actions. Instead of dismissing Putin as a "mad man" i believe it is better to try and understand his / Russia's motives to either a) de escalate the situation to a peace or failing that b) defeat him.

Please try to understand that people on this forum are entitled to different interpretations or views.

@1dayatatime as in you think tactical nukes would be used within individual NATO countries aimed at their forces, rather than on Ukraine soil? But if that were the case surely the response would be all out strategic nuclear war anyway and Russia would know that?

15.36 post, totally agree op, everyone has had the wrong strategy.
I was reading how various US presidents have mishandled him especially bush.

@HelpMeHiveMind

"@1dayatatime as in you think tactical nukes would be used within individual NATO countries aimed at their forces, rather than on Ukraine soil? But if that were the case surely the response would be all out strategic nuclear war anyway and Russia would know that?"

++++

Looking at my previous post I was unclear. The risk I see is in tactical nukes being used against NATO forces either in NATO countries or potentially in Ukraine if NATO troops were to become involved there. Much less likely is that Russia would use tactical nukes against Ukrainian forces in Ukraine.

Russia does not have a policy against "first use of nukes" that NATO does and their use of tactical nukes is part of the battle doctrine.

As for the response being an all out nuclear war, I agree.